1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a medical care and communal living home for older persons, and operates a long-term care institution that provides facility benefits under the trade name of “B medical care center” (hereinafter “instant medical care center”).

B. From June 30, 2014 to the same year, Defendant and the National Health Insurance Corporation

7.3. On-site investigations of the instant medical care institution (the period subject to investigation: 6 months from December 2, 2013 to May 2014) were conducted.

As a result of the above on-site investigation, the Defendant: (a) is eight persons admitted to the instant medical care center; and (b) is required to have three caregivers; (c) however, the Plaintiff issued a disposition to order 78 days of business suspension of the instant medical care center pursuant to Article 37 of the Long-Term Care Insurance Act and Article 29 of the Enforcement Rule of the Long-Term Care Insurance Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on October 2, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the standards for placement of human resources by placing two caregivers, without being registered as seven persons admitted to the instant medical care center from January 1, 2014 to April 24, 2014 for inmates C; and (d) from December 16, 2013 to January 2, 2014 for inmates D without being registered as seven persons admitted to the instant medical care center.

C. On the other hand, on August 8, 2014, the National Health Insurance Corporation rendered a decision to recover KRW 5,357,860 of the cost of long-term care benefits to the instant medical care center pursuant to Article 43 of the Long-Term Care Insurance Act for the Plaintiff on the same ground as the instant disposition.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on January 13, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 7, 9, 11 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s notice of expenses for long-term care benefits, etc. on the grounds of the instant disposition (No. 2014-97, Jun. 26, 2014) is published by the Ministry of Health and Welfare.